If you're unwilling to document the films from the 1947-52 era in the context of a perspective that, after reading it, I would have to charitably term "anarcho-syndicalism lapsed into libertarianism", then there is only a limited amount we can discuss here. However, I will take a brief stab at this.
FORCE OF EVIL addresses forms of systematic corruption. It was written and directed by a communist who, if he were alive today, would insist that the actual form of what Marx was proposing has only rarely been allowed to operate--Dubcek's Czechoslovakia, for one. The film argues that capitalism, left unchecked, will result in coercive corruption that will create oligopoly, though it structures itself around a morality play where a proseltyzer who is 9/10ths of the way to selling his soul (Garfield) woos an innocent (Pearson) in hopes of using her to convince his brother (Gomez) to cease resisting the pull of the syndicate. Neither of them grasp exactly how far that organization will go in order to crush such resistance.
THE LAWLESS, TRY AND GET ME and to a lesser extent THE UNDERWORLD STORY address the early 1950s version of the thorny issues of the freedom of the press, including its power to incite mob violence and thus undermine the rule of law. Each of those films makes a journalist ponder which way to go in standing up for basic rights, particularly for those of minorities or other disaffected parties. These films are cautionary tales of how a set of half-truths can be manipulated to distort events that will simultaneously produce divisive acts that create forms of panic that result in police states and loss of human rights.
CROSSFIRE and OPEN SECRET deal with racial and ethnic prejudice, a long-standing conundrum within world political systems that requires eternal vigilance so that the horrors of ethnic cleansing will not gain political control of nations. We saw what happened when such was the case, but the simple-minded libertarian is at bottom powerless to stop this because it relies on a naive notion that its cynical individualism applied to the masses will act as a prophylactic against individual greed, lust, envy, and the corrupt coercions that ensue when there is no social contract in place to hold things in check.
THE TURNING POINT deals with the dilemma of corruption in government and how difficult reform measures can be if the structure has been allowed to become rotten. The film does not turn cynical or throw up its hands and turn libertarian, however. It suggests that vigilance is the most vital force to limit corruption and its potentially pestilential effects.
There are no neo-noirs that address the type of situation that filmmakers, writers, actors, individuals and even politicians faced in 1947-52. I challenge you to name any that explicitly address those dangers. We were fortunate in that era that the coercive agents most front and center were shown to be charlatans. Ironically, a Republican president (Eisenhower) created a Supreme Court that actually allowed government a chance to address issues of systematic racial prejudice that otherwise might not have occurred for many decades. (Issues that are now in a constant state of peril, given the current constitution of the court, engineered by a Republican party that Eisenhower would repudiate.) When the rule of law is held hostage, all sub-groups are at risk, and anarcho-syndicalists and libertarians alike will find that their ability to "resist" on their terms will have evaporated before their eyes. The fleeting nature of Russian "democracy" should make that clear.
It is important that the older films be screened as a reminder of the forces that imperil basic freedoms, to demonstrate that history has a tendency to repeat itself when we are not vigilant about maintaining a social contract which includes safety nets not limited to what the rich will allow to "trickle down" in their enclaves. You tip your hand here when you talk about "free lunches"--no one is asking for that, and yet this dog whistle variant crops up here without any discussion or practical proposal of how to alternatively achieve those goals.
It is also important IMO that the subversive social critique in noir--or, should I say, that portion of it that does not succumb to cynicism and variants of adolescent obsessionism--be front and center in how it is presented to those who are attracted to it. That is why the call was made for such to be part of the programs presented by the individual/organization with the greatest power to reach the greatest number of people (Eddie Muller and the FNF). These gestures may ultimately be only symbolic, but they are worth the effort, because without a basis for knowledge, there can be no enlightenment, and without enlightenment, there can be no action to remedy social ills--there can only be the cynical and (IMO) misguided retreat into an "individualism" that will ultimately be rendered moribund and meaningless.